Ego Whip is now officially my favourite Psi Power!

[Kae'Yoss]

well not so much bad, as the way the story was told, the player gto annoyed because of the many changes.

He started complaining right away. Not just after "the hundredth house rule". And he wasn't happy about the house-rules I didn't use.

Sure he was a munchkin and didn’t know the rules, but it just seemed to me that the dm didn’t explain the new house rules and that it could have seemed to the player that the dm was specifically targeting the player and disallowing or messing with many of the things the player wanted to play.

I can think only of the dwarf thing. The rest is general stuff, and stuff that is wide-spread: Everyone uses point buy, everyone uses fixed HP.

As for not knowing: He didn't ask. He knew about house-rules in general.

It can grind on new players that are used to by the book d&d only to have many of the things they used to know, changed and tinkered with.

They didn't play by the book. Read my post again.

It also doesn’t help when the house rules come out slowly and hinder the new player every step of the way.

What can you do if he shows up at 4 (we play at 4) without a character and makes him during the time we should be playing? He could have contacted me beforehand and asked about the character generation parameters beforehand. Considering that you waste the group's time if you don't, it would have been the right thing to do.

Also the thread seemed more about how he angered his new player

I didn't anger him. I didn't go out of my way just to peter him off. He flew off the handle the first time he round out I wasn't crawling up his backside. Not my fault if he flips out at the smallest thing.

and took him down in combat.

He had it coming: If you threaten someone's life (and are completely inept at proper intimidation), that someone will strike back.

Think of this: Someone is holding your head inches from a blade barrier and telling you to give up. You really don't want to surrender (since you'd probably facing execution because of what you did). So you want to break free, you know you got one shot. I guess you'd take the sure shot.

Seemed like the dm enjoyed frustrating the player.

Consider this: Some of my houserules are in place to to weaken concepts that are too strong. If he runs afoul of so many, what does that tell you?

I do enjoy frustrating that player, in that I enjoy taking twinked characters and cut them down to size.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I actually think the "grapple and hold head to blade barrier" sounds like a very cool thing for any angry half-orc barbarian/fighter to do. Obviously you and this guy have a serious personality class, but the fact that he bothered to try something like that instead of just calculating his optimum power attack bonus tells me he might be a lot better player than you're letting on.

Yeah he created a character with a big weakness for charisma damage. But hey, sometimes playing a character strong in one direction and with a gaping weakness in another is a fun way to go. What was he supposed to do, buy up extra charisma that the character was never going to use just in case somebody that does charisma damage comes along?

Sounds like he's certainly better off out of your game, anyway. Hopefully he'll find a game he likes better.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I actually think the "grapple and hold head to blade barrier" sounds like a very cool thing for any angry half-orc barbarian/fighter to do. Obviously you and this guy have a serious personality class, but the fact that he bothered to try something like that instead of just calculating his optimum power attack bonus tells me he might be a lot better player than you're letting on.

Huh? What are you even talking about?

I didn't pick on him because he did something smart. So don't pick on me because I did. I didn't say that he was roleplaying badly in this case. But it seems you say that I was doing bad roleplaying.

The wilder in question was threatened. The orc threatened the wilder, but failed to properly intimdate her, so she eliminated the threat.

Yeah he created a character with a big weakness for charisma damage. But hey, sometimes playing a character strong in one direction and with a gaping weakness in another is a fun way to go.

I doubt he wanted to create a character with a weakness for Cha damage. He just wanted to play a character that was very good at fighting, and used as dump stat something he had no use for. He probably didn't count on an enemy being able to do cha damage.

And I didn't build this character to foil him. Actually, the party is rather high on charisma - no character used it as a dump stat - so it was never intended as a killer power.

What was he supposed to do, buy up extra charisma that the character was never going to use just in case somebody that does charisma damage comes along?

Why was he never going to use it? He complained about lack of roleplaying in the party and built a character that would hardly say a word or interact with anyone, except by trading blows.

Sounds like he's certainly better off out of your game, anyway. Hopefully he'll find a game he likes better.

Yes, and the party is better off without him. Others were commenting on how they didn't like him talking to the DM like that. Some were astonished he wasn't thrown out of the house after half an hour.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Huh? What are you even talking about?

I didn't pick on him because he did something smart. So don't pick on me because I did. I didn't say that he was roleplaying badly in this case. But it seems you say that I was doing bad roleplaying.

The wilder in question was threatened. The orc threatened the wilder, but failed to properly intimdate her, so she eliminated the threat.

You didn't do anything "wrong" by having the wilder respond that way. I'm just saying he gets points in my book for trying something creative, even if it didn't work. I hope you gave him a +2 cirumstance modifier on his intimidate roll.

I doubt he wanted to create a character with a weakness for Cha damage. He just wanted to play a character that was very good at fighting, and used as dump stat something he had no use for. He probably didn't count on an enemy being able to do cha damage.

Pretty much. Of course, this makes him the same as about 95% of players out there, so it doesn't really cast gaming skills in a negative light. Characters having dump stats is something you're asking for when using point buy. Sure he could have fliched points from somewhere else and boosted his charisma up a little... but would an 8 instead of a 6 really have helped him any?

And I didn't build this character to foil him. Actually, the party is rather high on charisma - no character used it as a dump stat - so it was never intended as a killer power.

Yes, you've said so repeatedly and I believe you. But hey, it wasn't a killer power here either, was it? Sure it took him out for one combat, but it's a lot easier to recover from stat damage than death.

Why was he never going to use it? He complained about lack of roleplaying in the party and built a character that would hardly say a word or interact with anyone, except by trading blows.

Nonsense. Ridiculous. You don't need a high charisma to interact with people. You just need a high charisma (or at least high skill ranks) to get them to respond the way you want. But lacking the social skills doesn't mean a character should shut up and never talk. That's no fun, and way too much of a burden. (In D&D especially, where a lot of characters won't pick up social skills for one reason or another.)

Maybe you should have suggested he throw some of his limited skill ranks into intimidate. Even with a charisma penalty, 7 or 8 ranks would let him intimidate small fry (probably not the wilder) quite satisfactorily.

Yes, and the party is better off without him. Others were commenting on how they didn't like him talking to the DM like that. Some were astonished he wasn't thrown out of the house after half an hour.

Sounds like you didn't fit each other's gaming styles very well. Still, perhaps the experience will be positive for your group. Often having an outsider come in and question things will make players wake up and think about the way they play.

And hey, you got a good enworld post out of it, didn't you?

 

[airwalkrr]

Yeah that would suck. might as well reroll a new character

That's kind of the point. I want coming back from the dead to be a roleplay decision. If your character has unfinished business then he really wants to come back, even if life will be tougher. Otherwise, he is plenty happy in the afterlife and another must be found to take his place. As written, getting raised from the dead can be seen as a bonus in some ways. Over time, say every character in the party dies once, thus effectively reducing the level of the characters by 1. The DM is thus forced to design his adventures to be challenging to characters 1 level lower. However, each character only spent 5,000 gp to be raised from the dead, yet they earn far more than that each level in treasure. So all they have done is maintained the same difficulty while improving their gp/xp ratio, thus making their character better.

Getting raised from the dead should be a penalty, not a boon. And the choice to do it should be fueled by an RP decision, not the path of least resistance. Despite the 3.5 price hike, raise dead is still too easy, and this house rule keeps death a fearful consequence.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's kind of the point. I want coming back from the dead to be a roleplay decision. If your character has unfinished business then he really wants to come back, even if life will be tougher. Otherwise, he is plenty happy in the afterlife and another must be found to take his place. As written, getting raised from the dead can be seen as a bonus in some ways. Over time, say every character in the party dies once, thus effectively reducing the level of the characters by 1. The DM is thus forced to design his adventures to be challenging to characters 1 level lower. However, each character only spent 5,000 gp to be raised from the dead, yet they earn far more than that each level in treasure. So all they have done is maintained the same difficulty while improving their gp/xp ratio, thus making their character better.

This is a fallacious rationalization for your house rule. The DM is not forced to make adventures easier. The PCs might not have the same level abilities, but they have the same items sans 5000 GP.

I suspect the real reason is that you do not want to explicitly ban raises, but have done the next best thing: make them unpalatable. Is it because you do not want to interrupt your carefully crafted adventures with the group going back to town to get someone raised?

Getting raised from the dead should be a penalty, not a boon. And the choice to do it should be fueled by an RP decision, not the path of least resistance. Despite the 3.5 price hike, raise dead is still too easy, and this house rule keeps death a fearful consequence.

Death is already a fearful consequence and getting raised from the dead is already a penalty. You have just made it more of a penalty.

I did the opposite of what you did.

I made it easier to not die in the first place instead of more of a pain in the butt to be raised.

My house rule is that if a character is at -10 or lower, the rest of the group has 1 round (since the init of whatever killed that character) to heal him back up to -9 or greater. Think of it as a one round extremely cheap mini-raise. This minimizes totally random PC death and makes the game more fun for everyone. But, it does not minimize many stupidity deaths (e.g. you jump over a deep pit without a rope and fail the jump roll, you fall in the pit and still die since nobody can save you in time).

Another way to do this is with fate or action points.

Instead of penalizing the players for taking risks and RPing dangerous situations like you did, I rewarded them. That, to me, is more fun.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

This is a fallacious rationalization for your house rule. The DM is not forced to make adventures easier. The PCs might not have the same level abilities, but they have the same items sans 5000 GP.

I suspect the real reason is that you do not want to explicitly ban raises, but have done the next best thing: make them unpalatable. Is it because you do not want to interrupt your carefully crafted adventures with the group going back to town to get someone raised?

I think you missed the poster's point. Or ... if you didn't miss it, you decided to comment on everything but the point.

The previous poster wants the decision to be raised to be an RP decision, not simply "because it's so easy in D&D and this way I don't have to make up a new character."

To me, that reason makes perfect sense and I honestly think it is a very valid rationale.

Having said that, I disagree with the -2 CON penalty. As others have said, that is tough. If I wanted to limit characters being raised I would make it a bit mor costly. Make the donation to the temple cost something fierce - like 80% of the dead character's wealth or all but one magic item of their choosing. Or something like that. I admit that each of these are houserules ... but I find that players are willing to overcome a monetary loss much quicker than a permanent STAT loss.

Now, on to the more important issue. I agree that resurrection has become a "safety net" in D&D because it is so commonplace. I think that is a bit sad, because in my mind it takes an element of realism out of the game. It certainly doesn't make the game un-fun. And it certainly won't stop me from playing it. But I do think that being raised from death is just too easy in the current edition.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you missed the poster's point. Or ... if you didn't miss it, you decided to comment on everything but the point.

The previous poster wants the decision to be raised to be an RP decision, not simply "because it's so easy in D&D and this way I don't have to make up a new character."

To me, that reason makes perfect sense and I honestly think it is a very valid rationale.

And the current rules already support this. The penalty is that all of the other PCs are 1 level higher than you are, plus you have to pay 5000 GP. That's still a RPing decision (or minimally a player wants to continue playing his PC decision) because the penalty is so severe.

Having said that, I disagree with the -2 CON penalty. As others have said, that is tough. If I wanted to limit characters being raised I would make it a bit mor costly. Make the donation to the temple cost something fierce - like 80% of the dead character's wealth or all but one magic item of their choosing. Or something like that. I admit that each of these are houserules ... but I find that players are willing to overcome a monetary loss much quicker than a permanent STAT loss.

Now, on to the more important issue. I agree that resurrection has become a "safety net" in D&D because it is so commonplace. I think that is a bit sad, because in my mind it takes an element of realism out of the game. It certainly doesn't make the game un-fun. And it certainly won't stop me from playing it. But I do think that being raised from death is just too easy in the current edition.

It depends on the group. I cannot remember the last time a player in my group wanted to raise his PC. It's possible that in our campaigns, some players get bored with the same PC after 8 or so levels and want to try something new, or it's possible that the -1 level penalty is just too severe for them. But although it is a safety net and it is readily available, players in my campaigns tend to not take advantage of it (course, they might take advantage of Raise Dead more often if I did not have my -10 house rule).

 

[moritheil]

Everybody wants some justice.

First, I've often touted Ego Whip as a multipurpose power, so I'm pleased to see that it was useful here.

Kae'Yoss - Your assertion that "Everyone uses point buy, everyone uses fixed HP" is a bit inaccurate. Nonetheless, it's not like you didn't tell him that they would be involved at some point. Fundamentally, you and this player did not get along from square one, and that is because the player continually downplayed his own ability while trying to sneak in optimized combinations.

Wolfwood - You are right in that the player might be "a good player" in terms of combat effectiveness. However, Kae'Yoss's point seems to be that the player is extremely frustrating to DM for, and thus he is not a good player in that sense.

AW, NF, KD - From reading, it seems that your respective campaigns take place in different settings and with different expectations, so continuing to compare apples and oranges is likely to prove frustrating.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Kae'Yoss - Your assertion that "Everyone uses point buy, everyone uses fixed HP" is a bit inaccurate.

No, it isn't. Every single player in my campaign uses point buy and has fixed HP. I didn't speak about the whole community, but about my campaign. My point is that I didn't introduce point buy and fixed HP to weaken his character or anything. Those rules were put in place years before I knew that guy existed, and they are in use in our gaming circle for a long time.

Nonetheless, it's not like you didn't tell him that they would be involved at some point. Fundamentally, you and this player did not get along from square one, and that is because the player continually downplayed his own ability while trying to sneak in optimized combinations.

That would not be the worst of it. In my other ex-gaming circle - where I left recently - there's a guy who would always scour the books to make the perfect character. Minmaxer and powergamer to the max (or minmax). But otherwise a great chap and we get a long fine.

The main problem here was his attitude. When confronted with something he didn't like, he didn't respectfully ask for the reasons behind this. He accosted me, like he was the judge and I the criminal, or whined like a spoiled brat.

Wolfwood - You are right in that the player might be "a good player" in terms of combat effectiveness. However, Kae'Yoss's point seems to be that the player is extremely frustrating to DM for, and thus he is not a good player in that sense.

Yes. Whatever qualities or faults he has, he showed no respect - indeed, offered hostility - to the DM, and that can't work.